Open Carry

Viewing posts tagged Open Carry

In a move that could signal a positive change in movie theater policies regarding a patron's right to self-defense, a Federal Judge has ruled that Cinemark Theaters in Aurora, Colorado should have had more security measures in place prior to the July, 2012 massacre. Obviously one of the most basic security allowances that Cinemark could implement would be allowing customers to be armed on the premises in accordance with state law.

A 2009 Federal Court ruling condemned Alamogordo, NM police officers that forcibly disarmed a moviegoer that was openly carrying a firearm in accordance with state law. [click for article]

Instead, Jackson's ruling denies what is known as a "motion for summary judgment" filed by Cinemark. Similar to a previously denied motion, the theater chain had argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed because the attack was "legally unforeseeable."

Wednesday afternoon members of the “Open Carry Texas” group argued with those of the “New Black Panthers” over a demonstration they planned in a neighborhood with predominantly black community.

*Update:

The controversial Open Carry Texas group has postponed their planned march through Houston’s Fifth Ward. The group planned to march through the historically African American neighborhood on Saturday, but many neighbors and the New Black Panther Movement said they were not welcome.

Members of the gun rights group met with Fifth Ward community leaders Wednesday, hoping to explain why they chose that neighborhood to hold a demonstration.

They were met by a chorus of voices telling them to stay out of the neighborhood and warned they will be “matched gun-for-gun.”

“I’m going to tell you something homie, this is Fifth Ward, you ain’t coming in here running nothing,” community activist Quanell X said while flanked by members of the New Black Panther Party, who were holding assault rifles.

The two groups sat across from one another at a small folding table under a tree near the intersection of Lockwood and Lyons to discuss the details of the upcoming event.

Members of Open Carry Texas have held hundreds of events where members walk through communities openly carrying rifles and shotguns in support of Second Amendment rights. The group’s president, CJ Grisham, tried to explain why they chose the Fifth Ward for one of these events.

“We’re trying to touch as many people as possible with our message that an armed society is a polite society,” said Grisham.

Other community leaders complained that the group should have reached out to them before scheduling an event.

Eventually the meeting devolved into a shouting match and officers had to step in to ease tensions.
As members of Open Carry Texas walked away from the table, they got a final warning.

“Saturday we will come and protect and defend our community because we don’t trust them,” said Quanell X. “Their motives are out of control.”

On Thursday, Open Carry Texas postponed the event and released the following statement:

Open Carry Texas is dedicated to the safe and legal carry of firearms. We believe that the Second Amendment is color blind and that everyone should be allowed to exercise this fundamental right without fear of retribution, harassment, or threats of violence.

Since the joint meeting in 5th Ward on Wednesday, several members of the community have reached out to us with a heartfelt desire to work together to make a 5th Ward event possible. It became obvious over the past few days that certain individuals in the area were intentionally pitting us against the community. After numerous phone calls and exchanges of emails with community leaders, the OCT board voted unanimously to postpone the event for a future date in order to give OCT and 5th Ward leadership an opportunity to overcome the controversy associated with this event.

“Our goal has always been to hold this demonstration with 5th Ward, not just in 5th Ward,” said OCT President CJ Grisham. “We have an opportunity to correct all the lies, miscommunication, and vitriol associated with this event and express our true intent. I’m more than happy to push this event back to make that happen.”

An open carry activist’s interaction with law enforcement in Calumet County, Wisconsin, could have brought about a correction in local laws, but not without having a deputy point a rifle at him first.

The incident occurred when William Polster went for a walk in the county park near Lake Winnebago over the weekend. While Polster maintained he had every legal right under state law to have firearms, which he openly carried, responding Calumet County sheriff’s deputies did not agree.

In fact, while making initial contact with Polster, one of the lawmen covered the gun rights advocate with what appears to be an AR-style patrol rifle.

“If an individual is carrying a firearm, it’s not unlikely that we’re not going to draw our firearm in preparation,” Calumet County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Brett Bowe told Fox 11. “He had a sidearm, but he also had a weapon slung across his back, dressed in black.”

While Polster responded at first with salty language to officers, he then surrendered his firearms to the deputies briefly for inspection before turning the topic of conversation to his belief that state laws on allowing guns in parks preempts the local county ordinance prohibiting them.

After looking further into the subject, Calumet county officials have promised to change the ordinance to comply with the state’s laws, which changed 11 years ago. In the meantime, the sheriff’s office will not enforce the ban.

This is the latest incident of open carriers being stopped while legally armed in public areas. Last December, a Colorado man was awarded a $23,500 settlement following his wrongful arrest while carrying in a city park. Arresting officers claimed that the man was in violation of the law, but it turned out that the law they were referring to had been repealed nearly a decade prior.

Further cases of similar settlements have occurred in Washington and Wisconsin in the past two years.

Polster, perhaps best known for his recent interaction with Wisconsin First Lady Tonette Walker, told Guns.com Wednesday that the incident led to a positive result.

“I want to point out to the people saying open carry hurts our rights that this is an example where open carry, standing firm and putting pressure on the local law enforcement and DA restored our rights,” said Polster, who has posted the full video of his encounter online. He also wanted to thank the Wisconsin Department of Justice and state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen for their help in clearing up questions about the laws in question with Calumet county officials.

Open carry advocates will hold a rally at the park on Monday, the same day the county will decide whether or not it will continue to enforce the ordinance.

A BLM spokesperson also assured me during a recent interview that the BLM is not interested in the "surface management" of what they refer to as the "Red River Management Area" (RRMA) but just like their claim of stewardship over 116 miles (or more than 90,000 acres) of Texas land, this is utter falsehood.

The fact is, the Bureau of Land Management is expanding their holdings along the border between Texas and Oklahoma and I can prove it.

Concerning the issue of Surface Management:

On the Bureau of Land Management's website there is a recent document that mentions the RRMA, only once, under the sub-heading: BLM Oklahoma Field Office Mission – Surface Management. How about that? The very first area mentioned in the portion of the document dealing with surface-management is none other than RRMA!

Oddly enough, in my second interview with the same Oklahoma BLM spokesperson, I was told some of the specific ways in which the BLM intends to manage the surface of the RRMA.

For all of you that enjoy your weekends along the Red River, near the HWY 79 bridge between Beyers, TX and Waurika, OK, enjoy it while you can. The BLM was there just recently with Texas DOT officials and in their estimation your recreation is damaging the bridge supports in addition to ruining the environment.

Over the past few weeks there's been a lot of talk concerning exactly how the Red River has changed its course over the years and thereby altered the land around it. Presumably, this disputed fact has some bearing on who owns and/or manages the land on either side of the river.

There is a legal tradition for this, know as Riparian Law, which dates back to Roman times. However, according to the Bureau of Land Management, this common law standard has no bearing on their position. In fact the BLM operates under the US Dept of Interior's Riparian Policy. In interest of full disclosure the DOI itself lists this policy as an opinion, as it's web address makes clear: http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/opinions/M-37028.pdf .

Now here's where things get really strange.

The BLM states that according to a survey done in 1923, the southern boundary of federally held lands was marked along the median line of the Red River. Everything south of the midpoint of the river was Texas. This survey line was marked with wooden stakes which, obviously, are no longer present. There seems to be no argument that the river has moved northward but the BLM states that regardless of this fact, their 'border' remains in that fixed spot on the planet. I pressed the BLM spokesperson on how they can sure of where their 'border' lies given the fact that the stakes are gone and that the survey team in 1923 had no GPS technology. The BLM could not answer this question.

At the time that the survey was done however it was understood that the river shifted and yet no mention was made that the 'border' would remain fixed. In fact the only datum by which the 'border' can be delineated (according to the survey) is the course of the river itself.

It certainly seems like the BLM is making up the rules as it goes along doesn't it?

Yet the most damning evidence against the BLM's unlawful land-grab comes once again from their very own documents. Much of the information that I used for this article can now be easily found on the internet; but when I first started investigating this issue any mention of the Red River of the South by the BLM was completely absent on every search engine. Humorously enough it was only after speaking with the BLM the first time that I was able to find these documents that so clearly dispute their claims.

This link will take you to the BLM's Oklahoma Resource Management Plan (RMP). If you follow that link and scroll down to document page 101 or .pdf page 107, you will find the section labeled THE RMP FOR ISSUE 4. RED RIVER MANAGEMENT.

The first sentence states: "A unique situation exists in relation to the issue of the Red River area management. The area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas."

Another undeniable fact in this case is that in the year 2000, U.S. Congress did in fact make a decision regarding the state boundaries between Texas and Oklahoma, a fact that is not disputed by any of the interested parties. The northern boundary of Texas is the vegetative line of the south bank of the Red River.

referenced here by the State of Oklahoma and here by the State of Texas

The Oklahoma RMP goes on to lay out three scenarios for management based on speculation on how the U.S. Congress was expected to rule at the time that the plan was accepted.

In plan 4a, the BLM would gain no additional land and be left with it's contemporary holdings of 958 acres.

Plan 4b would provide for an additional 1,400 acres but states that the BLM could end up acquiring upwards of 46,000 acres should they manipulate the courts successfully.

Thescenario imagined in Plan 4c, in stark contrast to what Congress actually decided, envisions the BLM being granted 90,000 acres of land that wasthen and is still owned by Texas farmers and ranchers.

This 1994 OK RMP is still the plan under which the Bureau of Land Management operates. While this plan is currently under revision in regards to future management of currently held land, it makes clear that the Red River Boundary Compact decision of the U.S. Congress did notgrant any additional acreage to the federal government. As it stands, the BLM's Red River Management Area consists of 958 non-contiguous acres, all of which lay beyond that vegetative line on the south bank of the Red River.

It is for this reason that Texans will be coming from across the state to rally, celebrate and make claim to our sovereign land. Our
gathering will be a peaceful one, so long as our public servants are mindful of their place.

1640 -Virginia Race-based total gun ban. “That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

1791 -United States 2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ratified. Reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

1792 -United States Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e. law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]

1806 -Louisiana Complete gun and self-defense ban for slaves. Black Code, ch. 33, Sec. 19, Laws of La. 150, 160 (1806) provided that a slave was denied the use of firearms and all other offensive weapons. (GLJ, p. 337)

1819 -South Carolina Master’s permission required for gun possession by slave. Act of Dec. 18, 1819, 1819 Acts of S. C. 28, 31 prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master’s plantation. (Id.)

1825 -Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. “An Act to Govern Patrols,” 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8provided that white citizen patrols “shall enter into all Negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away such arms, weapons, and ammunition …” Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if “in the presence of some white person.” (Id.)

1857 -United States High Court upholds slavery since blacks “not citizens.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney argued if members of the African race were “citizens” they would be exempt from the special “police regulations” applicable to them. “It would give to persons of the Negro race … full liberty of speech … to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Id. p. 417) U. S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that blacks could not be citizens.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do
it;... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln

1863 -United States Emancipation Proclamation President Lincoln issued proclamation “freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion.”

1865 -Mississippi Blacks require police approval to own guns, unless in military. Mississippi Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military“ and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county” from keeping or carrying “fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” [reprinted in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational and Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time, p. 291, Walter L. Fleming, ed., 1960.] (GLJ, p. 344)

1865 -Louisiana Blacks require police and employer approval to own guns, unless in military. Louisiana Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military service, from “carrying fire-arms, or any kind of weapons … without the special permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.” (Fleming, p. 280) (GLJ, p. 344)

1865 -United States Civil War ends May 26.

1865 -United States Slavery abolished as of December 18, 1865. 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified. Reads: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

1866 -Alabama Race-based total gun ban. Black Code of Alabama in January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited “any person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever” to any black. [The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates, p. 209, (Alfred Avins ed., 1967)] (GLJ, p. 345)

1866 -North Carolina Rights of blacks can be changed by legislature. North Carolina Black Code, ch. 40, 1866 N. C. Sess. Laws 99 stated “All persons of color who are now inhabitants of this state shall be entitled to the same privileges, and are subject to the same burdens and disabilities, as by the laws of the state were conferred on, or were attached to, free persons of color, prior to the ordinance of emancipation, except as the same may be changed by law.” (Avins, p. 291.) (GLJ, p. 344)

1866 -United States Civil Rights Act of 1866 enacted. CRA of 1866 did away with badges of slavery embodied in the “Black Codes,” including those provisions which “prohibit any Negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 1, 474 (29 Jan. 1866)] Senator William Saulsbury (D-Del) added “In my State for many years … there has existed a law … which declares that free Negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power …” and thus voted against the bill. CRA of 1866 was a precursor to today’s 42 USC Sec. 1982, a portion of which still reads: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”

1866 -United States Proposed 14th Amendment to U. S. Constitution debated. Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its
adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Senator Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Indiana) said “if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the Negroes, the coolies, and the Indians.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)]. Senator Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because “it is quite objectionable to provide that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’.” Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866, especially since the act “is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South,” e. g. Florida has as “a misdemeanor for colored men … and the punishment … is whipping …” [CONG GLOBE, 39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June1866)].1866 -United States Klu Klux Klan formed. Purpose was to terrorize blacks who voted; temporarily disbanded in1871; reestablished in 1915. In debating what would become 42 USC Sec. 1983, today’s federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained “This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon peaceful citizens, there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the Negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge … ; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]

1867 -United States The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867. Report noted with particular emphasis that under the Black Codes, blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.” (Reprinted in H. Hyman, The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, p. 219, 1967.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 71)

1868 -United States 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution adopted, conveying citizenship to blacks. Reads, in part: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

1870 -Tennessee First “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. In the first legislative session in which they gained control, white supremacists passed “An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide,” which banned the sale of all handguns except the expensive “Army and Navy model handgun” which whites already owned or could afford to buy, and blacks could not. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) Upheld in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.)165, 172 (1871) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74) “The cheap revolvers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were referred to as ”Suicide Specials,“ the ”Saturday Night Special“ label not becoming widespread until reformers and politicians took up the gun control cause during the 1960s. The source of this recent concern about cheap revolvers, as their new label suggest, has much in common with the concerns of the gun-law initiators of the post-Civil War South. As B. Bruce-Briggs has written in the Public Interest, ”It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the “Saturday Night Special” is emphasized because it is cheap and being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence -- the reference is to “niggertown Saturdaynight.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law,William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1871 -United States Anti-KKK Bill debated in response to race-motivated violence in South. A report on violence in the South resulted in an anti-KKK bill that stated “That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]. Since Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction over simple larceny, the language was removed from the anti-KKK bill, but this section survives today as 42 USC Sec. 1983: “That any person who, under color of any law, … of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which … he is entitled under the Constitution … shall be liable … in any action at law … for redress … .”1875 -United States High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U. S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and … With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)

1882 -Arkansas Third “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Arkansas followed Tennessee’s lead by enacting a virtually identical “Saturday Night Special” law banning the sale of any pistols other than expensive “army or navy” model revolvers, which most whites had or could afford, thereby disarming blacks. Statute was upheld in Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1893 -Alabama First all-gun economic ban passed. Alabama placed “extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes“ on the sale of handguns in an attempt ”to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.“ (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)1902 -South Carolina First total civilian handgun ban. The state banned all pistol sales except to sheriffs and their special deputies, which included the KKK and company strongmen. (Kates, ”Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States“ in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, p. 15, 1979.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 76)

1906 -Mississippi Race-based confiscation through record-keeping. Mississippi enacted the first registration law for retailers in1906, requiring them to maintain records of all pistol and pistol ammunition sales, and to make such records available for inspection on demand. (Kates, p. 14) (GMU CR LJ, p. 75)

1911 -New York Police choose who can own guns lawfully. “Sullivan Law” enacted, requiring police permission, via a permit issued at their discretion, to own a handgun. Unpopular minorities were and are routinely denied permits. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3, 000 permits in New York City, and 25, 000carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit. But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy are Donald Trump, Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and Winthrop Rockefeller. Surprise.” (Terrance Moran, Racism and the Firearms Firestorm, Legal Times)

1941 -Florida Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers … The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied … .” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)

The Following Historical Events Are Included as Context for Passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968:

1956 -United States Massive resistance to Supreme Court desegregation ruling called for by 101 Southern congressmen.

1957 -United States Congress approved first civil rights law for blacks. Governor ordered National Guard troops to prevent nine blacks from entering all-white high school in Little Rock; President Eisenhower had to send federal military troops to enforce court order that Guardsman be removed.

1960 -United States Sit-ins began February 1 when four black college students in Greensboro, NC, refused to move from a lunch counter after being denied service; by 1961, more than 700, 000 students, black and white, had participated in sit-ins.

1962 -United States 3,000 troops were required to quell riots after University of Mississippi accepted first black student.

1963 -United States 200, 000 people participated in March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. President John F. Kennedy assassinated in November.

1968 -United States Martin Luther King assassinated in April. Robert F. Kennedy assassinated in June.

1968 -United States Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)

1988 -Illinois Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois. Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD) enacted and enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep, which applied to all housing units owned and operated by the CHA. The purpose was the confiscation of firearms and illegal narcotics and consisted of warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy severely limiting the right of CHA tenants to associate in their residences with family members and other guests, tenants had to sign in and out of the building, producing to the police or CHA officials photo Id. Relatives, including children and grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on holidays. CHA tenants who objected or attempted to interfere with these warrantless searches were arrested. The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA tenants against the enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep. The complaint was filed in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on December 16, 1988, as Case No. 88C10566 and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. A consent decree was entered on November 30, 1989 in which the CHA and CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in which the scope and purposes of such “emergency housing inspections” were limited. (GMU, p. 98)

1990 -Virginia Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Virginia. U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld a ban imposed by the Richmond Housing Authority on the possession of all firearms, whether operable or not, in public housing projects. The Richmond Tenants Organization had challenged the ban, arguing that such requirement had made the city’s 14, 000 public housing residents second-class citizens. [Richmond Tenants Org. v. Richmond Dev. & House. Auth., No. C. A. 3:90CV00576 (E. D. Va. Dec. 3, 1990).] (GMU, p. 97)

1994 -United States President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton Administration introduced H. R. 3838 in 1994 to ban guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee reject edit. Similar legislation was filed in1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.

1995 -Maine Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Maine. Portland, Maine, gun ban in public housing struck down on April 5, 1995.

Members of Come and Take It Texas say that they find it “incredibly fulfilling” to address these urgent needs that have become so common in today’s financial climate.

They’re also “especially proud” to be serving the many US military veterans that find themselves without any community support after they leave the service.

CATI Austin member Tom Jefferson stated: “We understand this is just one meal and a few items of clothes right now, but we hope to show the many in need that we have not forgotten about them.”

Come and Take It Texas is an entirely self-funded grassroots organization.

Their philosophy is inspired by civil rights heroes such as Rosa Parks who demonstrated the world changing power that one individual can wield when focused on societal evolution. They are quick to point out however that real change only occurs when others join in the effort.

Come and Take It Texas hopes that their projects inspire others to seek out a local chapter and help preserve the Texas traditions of responsibility and independence that are so crucial in maintaining a self-sustaining community.

On Saturday 4/12/14 demonstrators held a three-hour open carry walk including a break for lunch at Cassidy's Sub Shop, a local eatery owned by 2nd Amendment supporters.

On Saturday CATI also saw their first local detractor in Andrews. A local man repeatedly drove past the group [which included women and children] cursing and making offensive hand gestures at them. Andrews Police officers spoke with the man and discouraged him from using obscenities should he decide to express himself further. The officer later stated that the offender is known to them as a difficult individual so it's no surprise that, like most of the anti-gun crowd, he maintained a classy and mature demeanor while expressing his opinions. (sarcasm intended)

Though CATI Andrews County has earned the respect of local law enforcement, many remain confounded by what seems to be an absence of logic within the Andrews District Attorney's office as the case against CATI member and former Army Sergeant Michael Keoughan moves forward.

There is ample evidence that Michael Keoughan violated no laws and the dash-cam footage from the arrest makes it clear that the arresting officers were aware of this. Law enforcement was also previously aware of Michael's identity and the reason he was in Andrews that day. CATI Midland/Odessa looks forward to making more footage and recordings available as soon as Michael's trial is over.

The DA's office has had plenty of time to research the facts in the case and make comparisons to preceding incidents around the state; assuming that they have done this, one wonders what motivates the city to waste taxpayer funds in order to soothe the wounded ego of their Chief of Police shortly before he vacates his office.

Although the town 12,000 still requires CATI to file permits for their educational walks, the situation in Andrews, TX is radically improving. Come and Take It Texas regards the situation as a textbook example of how their reasoned methods and educated activists can powerfully restructure a governmental body that has neglected the Constitution and overstepped it's lawful authority.